This dispute will determine whether Congress’s intent will be preserved and the United States will keep a national credit market that benefits consumers. The alternative is to undermine Congress’s intent and create a fragmented system that raises costs, reduces access to credit, and accelerates consolidation.

As policymakers have already heard in debates over proposed interest-rate caps, restricting how credit is priced doesn’t make it cheaper –  it makes it less available, especially for consumers who need it most. Because roughly 80 percent of U.S. banks are state-chartered, applying state caps to out-of-state banks would likely accelerate consolidation, with credit migrating to the largest national banks that are not subject to the same constraints.

DIDMCA is the legal infrastructure that makes a national credit market possible. Under DIDMCA, loans made by a state-chartered institution follow the rules of the bank’s home state, not the borrower’s state, thus enabling nationwide lending platforms, competitive consumer credit markets, and lower costs through scale and competition. 

While DIDMCA allows states to opt out and apply their own rate limits to “loans made in that state,” that phrase has been consistently understood to mean loans made by banks chartered in that state – not loans made by out-of-state banks.

Colorado has adopted a new and far broader interpretation by claiming authority to regulate any loan to its residents by a state-chartered institution, even when the loan is made by an institution chartered and regulated in another state. Notably, Colorado does not assert such authority over federally chartered institutions, because it has no authority to opt out of the National Bank Act.  If allowed to stand, this interpretation would fracture uniform national rules, create a confusing state-by-state patchwork of rate caps, raise compliance costs, and reduce access to credit.

Key Milestones & Timeline

• 1980 – DIDMCA enacted, giving state-chartered  institutions parity with national banks for interstate lending.

• 1980–2023 – DIDMCA opt-out understood to apply to loans made by banks chartered in the opting-out state.

• 2023–2024 – Colorado enacts legislation opting out of DIDMCA and attempts to expand it to include loans to Colorado residents made by out-of-state lenders.  

• 2024 – National Association of Industrial Bankers, American Financial Services Association, and American Fintech Council challenge Colorado’s law in federal court.

• 2024 - District Court – Plaintiffs obtain a preliminary injunction blocking Colorado from enforcing its erroneously broad interpretation of the opt-out provision against the plaintiffs and their members.   

• November 2025 – Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the injunction in a 2–1 decision, accompanied by a blistering 30 page dissent warning that Colorado’s approach is contrary to federal law, undermines uniform national credit markets, and risks higher costs and reduced access to credit for consumers. NOTE: the preliminary injunction remains in place pending further proceedings. 

• December 2025 – Plaintiffs request en banc (full 12 judge) review by the Tenth Circuit.

• Amicus briefs filed in support of en banc review:

  • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) 

  • 20 State Attorneys General

  • American Bankers Association and 52 state (and D.C. and Puerto Rico)  affiliates

  • Bank Policy Institute

• January 2026 – Colorado asks the Tenth Circuit to deny en banc review.

• February 2026 – Reps. Davidson and Barr, and Sen. Moreno, respectively, introduce the American Lending Fairness Act to clarify and preserve the limited scope of authority provided to opt-out  states under DIDMCA.

For more information, including relevant legal filings, visit the American Financial Services Association DIDMCA Resource page.